82 comments:

Jesus a Democrat..? Dunno, I'm Jewish, but I recall the NT passage in which Jesus tells the rich young man (I am paraphrasing) "If you wish to be perfect, give everything you own to the poor and take up your cross and follow me." Sounds like a lot of what the left (esp the EPA) generally wants.

"Sounds like a lot of what the left (esp the EPA) generally wants." Other than the EPA, (who actually prefer everyone be poor and live in a cave) who on the left actually wants this? It seems they prefer to take other's property and have the government disburse it to favored groups. I'm not sure if i have ever seen anyone of the left give everything they own to the poor.

The parable is about YOU helping others, not the government taking your stuff and giving it to others.

What leftist always, always, always get wrong about Jesus is that he was not about government handouts, bailouts, or hand ups. That's where the phrase "Render unto Ceasar..." comes into play.

The government has a role, but to help someone YOU must make the effort. We must all help our brothers and sisters. But when the government takes over the aid to people we start getting insanity like the government paying for gender re-assignment surgery. We loose our sympathy for truly needy people when they start demanding it as a right, assigned by the government. It hardens our hearts. We feel not a spirit of generosity, but a resentfulness that makes us angry.

The government has a role, but to help someone YOU must make the effort. We must all help our brothers and sisters. But when the government takes over the aid to people we start getting insanity like the government paying for gender re-assignment surgery. We loose our sympathy for truly needy people when they start demanding it as a right, assigned by the government. It hardens our hearts. We feel not a spirit of generosity, but a resentfulness that makes us angry.

Liberal: "Sorry, but I already donated to the IRS. Didn't you get your welfare check?"

[and nicely said, Carnifex. You understand *exactly* why its dangerous and "sinful" to replace Charity with the Nanny State.]

As I said, The Blonde would have set Mrs Slob straight about maligning the nursing profession (comment is second from the top, easy to find). Not a threat, an observation. We are talking about events a year ago.

And I never said she's a Walker supporter. penguin assumes that.

And we all know what happens when someone assumes.

penguin needs to go back and have his glasses checked.

But, if penguin wants to talk about threats, there's always the babe in the SLASHER hat last weekend.

So, just on a lark I started looking at www.iverifytherecall.com . When I searched my last name, I found a family member I knew would never sign the petition. Turns out coworkers filled out the information and forged the signature after this individual declined to sign the petition at work. By the way, this was at a government job.

If you know anyone that has a government job that wouldn't sign the recall petitions, I would suggest looking them up. I really wonder if there would be other discoveries like this or if this was just a one-off thing.

Never ceases to amaze me how people who get called out on their violent threats will often retort with "Well, someone else (not you personally penquin, but someone who shares an opinion with you...which is TOTALLY the same thing, ya know) also made a threat!"

What I don't understand...are they saying that it was proper for that other person to use violent language and that is why they are also doing so? Or are they saying that they know that type of behavior is wrong, but they don't really care at all about behaving properly?

The Gospel According to St. Rufus (which has been suppressed by The Church for the past several centuries) mentions that right after Jesus first made that statement a rock came flying at him, thrown from somewhere in the crowd. He whirled around quickly to see who would do such a thing, but the anger left his eyes when he saw the woman who had thrown the stone, and he simply replied "Damn it Mom, that's not funny."

Anyone want to throw him a clue as to why his handwringing is not credible?

Because you don't find anyone who disagrees with any of your opinions to be credible?

*sigh*

Seriously...none of you have anything at all to say about the violent language used in this very thread, and instead ya'll just cuss at and attack the person who points out that behavior as being improper and wrong.

Never ceases to amaze me how people who get called out on their violent threats will often retort with "Well, someone else (not you personally penquin, but someone who shares an opinion with you...which is TOTALLY the same thing, ya know) also made a threat!"

"Break a few heads" is really just an everyday metaphor with no violent overtones to it at all? I sure don't agree with that opinion, but it is good to know that you think as such...knowing that about you helps explain a lot.

As for the threats against our hostess, I didn't notice any in this thread...have they been deleted?

"t it seems that most of the violent threats on this forum come from Walker supporters."

Most of everything on this blog comes from Walkers supporters; it's a smart group. Smart enough to know that The Blond is not really gonna come bust any heads. Maybe you should call Homeland Security; you just witnessed a terrorist threat. This no joking matter - lives are at stake.

You talking about the woman in that Slayer hat? 'cause I didn't "overlook" that at all, rather I said it was rude and creepy.

What is really interesting is that your one comment in that thread doesn't say anything at all about the threat, but instead you take a swipe at the "chanters" and make some personal remarks about other commentators.

So, since you're making a huge deal about it, can you please explain why you choose to overlook the threat against Ann?

And why did you choose to lie about me overlooking the threat against our hostess? Since you kept bringing it up, you must have went back and looked to make sure I actually hadn't said anything...right? You wouldn't just repeatedly say something like that without making sure your facts are correct, would you?

Anyone want to throw him a clue as to why his handwringing is not credible?

Penquin: Because you don't find anyone who disagrees with any of your opinions to be credible?

Because you are a mere sophist who's panic parry is always (like just now) a hyperbolic strawman.

Because you spend all your time here whitewashing credible threats to Ann and Meade from Union Thugs who didn't appreciate being spotlighted.

Because you always draw false equivalence to what you *imagine* is rightwing violence.

Because you ONLY whine about "threats" of violence when its directed against the Left. You never take a stand against Lefty hate speech against the Right. Ergo, its not the hate speech you have a problem with.

So someone with you lack of credibility on the subject clutching your pearls about "threats" of violence against the Left... is as laughable as it is insincere.

*sigh*

Indeed.

Seriously...none of you have anything at all to say about the violent language used in this very thread, and instead ya'll just cuss at and attack the person who points out that behavior as being improper and wrong.

Because you are a charlatan using an appeal to civility as a political prop. Please, go fuck off.

Did that help? Or do you need yet another clue bat to the head?

[on noooes! another "threat" of violence! quick! call the FBI before Penquin has another fainting spell!]

The thing about throwing stones, if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs only one will yelp. Just sayin'.

We have the leader of the liberal party sayin' "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard". You might have heard of him. Barack Obama...he won the Nobel Peace Prize ya' know.(psst...only because he was black...he didn't actually do anything peaceful)

Jimmy Hoffa Jr.-"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war... President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march"

My you lefty unionistas sure are a peaceful bunch. I believe you could take on the US Army, and Navy.

Eh... would you believe Seal Team VI?

Or is a basket of kittens more your speed? Mother Teresa? C'mon Penquin, she's already dead. I promise she won't put up a fight.

Leftist exclaiming their peaceful intentions drowns out the cries of MILLIONS of people who have been killed by leftist.

Go away, hypocrite. Much like my stone analogy to leslyn, you are yelping too loud.

FYI, it's an analogy, not a threat. (had to make that clear before I got reported to the FBI, or Big Zero's latest tattle tale website.)

A member of the Occupy New Haven movement was raped in a tent at the Occupy camp late on Monday night or early Tuesday morning, police said.

...

Police responded to the camp at 3:25 p.m. The victim was brought to Yale-New Haven Hospital and police charged England Gamble, 53, of New Haven, with first-degree sexual assault and first-degree unlawful restraint.

Because you ONLY whine about "threats" of violence when its directed against the Left. You never take a stand against Lefty hate speech against the Right.

*sigh*

Why do you feel the need to resort to these type of falsehoods? Just because you personally didn't see me say something doesn't mean I didn't say it. Most recently is from less than a week ago, when Ann posted the video of Slayer-girl. (http://tinyurl.com/6rh7joe)

I had more to say about the behavior of that "lefty" than what either you, Edutcher, Alex, or Carnifex had to say about it. In fact, most of the people who are decrying me for "overlooking" violent threats were TOTALLY SILENT in that thread.

I truly don't know why you have to make up crap about what I've said and haven't said. That's pretty sad...and says a lot about you as a person.

I affirm Carnifex' point about Christ. This is not about Robin Hood government, picking winners and losers. Its about individual choice. And while the progs/lefties/dems try to whitewash the entire country into a high-stepping march of mindless drones, the individual becomes less recognizable. Like someone else said, you either join up with the dem zombies or be cast into the abyss. That's some form of freedom you got there.

It makes one wonder whether all the lefties have smashed their mirrors.

PP has a long history here of being oh so concerned about the potential violence from Walker protesters...and then taking a "nothing to see here" attitude regarding the thuggish behavior of the protesters.

An anti-recall person rips up a blank petition and PP says that's an example of violence. A anti-recall person takes photos of license plates, oh my god the penguin is concerned. But a group surrounds Ann and asks her "what if she is attacked"..well they're just "creepy".

But if you want the best example, last year when Ann and her son were assaulted during the "sing along" in the Square...as in a man put his hands on her and son:

revidia rnizioverducco uldecoThe irony of Mrs. Slob's message... She reccomends a Civics class to Walker. I love her.... As for Ann's last year's message.... well today as was yesterday teachers they only teach what is easy to comprehend.... imagine they have to dish out to those little hooligans some theorem or a simple "two plus two equals four"... Revolution??!

And yes I am not a robot but those words are so unnecessary as no robot today can think and right a post on a topic unless someone of the kind "non-robot" programs it. so my previous post should have started with "The irony..." instead of all that garbage.

And I vote as often as possible, as do many of those who have passed on to reside with me. We all vote Democrat. Which is why we also do not support requiring I.D. In heaven there are no pockets to carry it.

"What will you do if they learn the lesson you're teaching them, to denounce legitimate authority when it crosses your heartfelt interests?"

It's good for children to see what it means to exercise one's rights to free speech, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. It's good for them to learn that "legitimate authority" comes from the people and is granted by us to our representatives to exercise on our behalf. It's good for them to see that just because the authorities make certain policies and pass certain laws that those policies and laws are not always in their best interest and are not sacrosanct...the will of the people can bring about changes in law and policy.

It is good to show children that participatory democracy does not begin and end with the largely ceremonial act of voting, but often involves pestering our reps with phone calls, letters, emails, and petitions, and often require protests. Showing children this does not mean they will grow up to be robotic nay-sayers to every policy decision or every law passed; but it may show them they do not have to be passive subjects to authority, accepting without murmur whatever they're told will be the new order of things.

Civics in Action!

By the way, I've posted before that establishing government programs to help the disadvantaged does not require one drop of charitable impulse within you, as it is not only about our pooling our collective resources to provide assistance for those who are in need, it is also about our collectively protecting ourselves against those unforseen calamities that may put us in circumstances of need: job loss; loss of home and property due to fire, wind or tremor; catastrophic illness; etc. One can be the most selfish bastard on earth and still find good cause to support a substantial taxpayer-funded safety net. For example, Ayn Rand, lunatic proponent of Ultra-Selfishness, was herself on Social Security and Medicare. One could condemn her as a hypocrite, but then, one has to recognize: life is expensive, and when you're older, only a fool would scorn help that's available and that one has helped pay for, (along with everyone else).

"Members of the Occupy movement said neither Gamble nor the victim are members of the movement. They said both are homeless and set up a tent nearby."

What makes you a member of OWS? Is there a membership card or secret handshake? Were they counted in crowd estimates? If they yelled "mic check", would it make a sound? If they did something respectable, you can bet your bippy they would be members.

You'll notice that even the victim became persona non grata as soon as they were not useful. Very 99%er-ish.

Robert, I don't often agree with you, and I'd debate the last bit of your post over a whisky or two, but as far as the bit about participatory democracy - spot on. Very well written.

Garage - a thought experiment. At a Tea Party rally, someone holds up a sign that shows the SCOAMF with a bone through his nose. It makes the news. I quote back to you, "members of the Tea Party movement said [the signholder] was not a member of the Tea Pary."

By the way, I've posted before that establishing government programs to help the disadvantaged does not require one drop of charitable impulse within you,

Good. For a minute there I thought you were going to call it charity. It isn't.

as it is not only about our pooling our collective resources to provide assistance for those who are in need, it is also about our collectively protecting ourselves against those unforseen calamities that may put us in circumstances of need: job loss; loss of home and property due to fire, wind or tremor; catastrophic illness; etc. One can be the most selfish bastard on earth and still find good cause to support a substantial taxpayer-funded safety net.

Thank You citizen!For I am completely unable to care for or plan for myself!!

For example, Ayn Rand, lunatic proponent of Ultra-Selfishness, was herself on Social Security and Medicare.

Once again citizen I thank You!You have no choice but to "contribute" to the state run "safety net" So in reality she isn't a hypocrit or we all are.

One could condemn her as a hypocrite, but then, one has to recognize: life is expensive, and when you're older, only a fool would scorn help that's available and that one has helped pay for,

Can I have my money back, please. I don't like the way you've "invested"it

(along with everyone else).

Oh. Sure. If Barack jumps off a cliff it doesn't mean I have to.Oh wait.........

"...as it is not only about our pooling our collective resources to provide assistance for those who are in need, it is also about our collectively protecting ourselves against those unforseen calamities..."

This, from undoubtedly a sage leftist better!!!

Yes, we ALL need to protect ourselves from the shackles of freedom!!! Oh, the humanity!!!

On the contrary, Cookie, liberty and freedom are insurance against the chains of the collective. You simply can't handle your freedom, rather, you are insecure about what others do with theirs.

If you feel 'responsibility' should be 'shared' then I would submit you are simply afraid of freedom. Freedom requires responsible participants. So don't act surprised, Cookie, when those of us react in a negative fashion to your aversions.

"It's good for children to see what it means to exercise one's rights to free speech, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. It's good for them to learn that "legitimate authority" comes from the people and is granted by us to our representatives to exercise on our behalf. It's good for them to see that just because the authorities make certain policies and pass certain laws that those policies and laws are not always in their best interest and are not sacrosanct...the will of the people can bring about changes in law and policy."

Excellent post, Robert.

I'm pretty negative about what citizens can actually accomplish anymore. We'll be allowed our little temper tantrum protests, but it seems that oligarchical rip-off and the national security state will roll on with bursting bubbles, bail-outs of the wealthy,facial recognition software, tissue typing, GPS tracking, etc. I don't see what it would take to awaken a relatively placid and well-fed underclass.

ChristopherI went to a Tea Party rally here in Madison a few years back. I didn't feel compelled to lie about what I saw. I even blogged about it here. I saw what to me were some curious signs, but so what?

"That would defeat the whole purpose of charity. But thanks for playing!"

I pondered long over whether/how to reply to your good deeds challenge. I applaud your compassion and generosity, and I don't believe you were putting it out there to say, "Look at me!"

But I just don't feel comfortable putting my own deeds out on the blog table. If that's hiding my light under a bushel, then so be it. For me, just for me, when Jesus said "let your good deeds shine before men," I think he meant by example, not advertising. Which method is more likely to meet the goal of "glorify(ing) your Father which is in heaven"?

"Carnifex said... Ps. @leslyn I spent Sunday helping a hysterical girl friend (she's a girl and a friend) move out of her abusive boyfriends house, and into an apartment a few doors down from me... who did you help?"

My reply to Carnifax was at his request and intended to avoid "look at me." Take it as you will; there's nothing more I can say.

You remind me of my terrier dog--always willing to pounce on something even if she doesn't quite know what it is.

The left is in a love/hate relationship with religion. One day they hate it and claim it’s antiquated, woman hating, Earth destroying, perverted, … The next they claim they’re doing what Jesus would do.

I can agree to that point, I just get tired of people talking about how they care because their leftist, but their actions don't match their words.

I am a rightist, and while my first inclination is to let people lay in the bed they make. My wife sez I have an over developed knight complex. I can no more turn down an appeal for help from a woman or a child than I could not breath.. Men are judged in a case by case basis. It has gotten me in trouble, but there it is

"The left is in a love/hate relationship with religion. One day they hate it and claim it’s antiquated, woman hating, Earth destroying, perverted, … The next they claim they’re doing what Jesus would do."

There is a difference between "religion" and "what Jesus would do."

Also, there are certainly leftist Christians--Chris Hedges comes to mind, as do the Berrigan brothers, and many others, unsung.

Appeals to emotion in order to conduct extortion designed to obfuscate any effort to distinguish between cause and effect and prevent discussion of issues of merit.

It could be worse. In other nations, they would skip extortion, and move directly to revolution. Since they have not done so in America, it would suggest that their positions are tenuous; or, perhaps, they, as their Chinese communist counterparts, recognize that maintaining a hybrid economy motivates greater productivity and opportunity to exploit.

Members of the Occupy movement said neither Gamble nor the victim are members of the movement. They said both are homeless and set up a tent nearby.

This is the excuse every time something bad happens in an Occupy camp. Of course, there's no such thing as "membership" in Occupy; heck, there's no one who can say with authority that someone is a member or not.

I didn't mention the bed other people made. But to be generous, I will opine that yes there is bad luck. I've had more than my faire share. I've also done some pretty stupid things too. I imagine we all have. I have no problem helping someone get up on their feet. I do have a problem with men and women, breeding like rabbits, just to get a bigger welfare check.

And here's where mt everyone gets one rule comes into effect. You are allowed 1 child that you can't support yourself. having more doesn't get you anything else. period dot end of sentence. If you continue to have kids. because you obviously are not responsible, they will be taken away, and given up for adoption. After three kids you can't support, you have done enough damage and you are sterilized.

"I do have a problem with men and women, breeding like rabbits, just to get a bigger welfare check."

This is a popular complaint among the right--or people who scorn welfare--but how true is it? Do you have access to studies that show--over time--who actually makes up the cohort of welfare recipients? There may be some people who have done this, but are they a significant percentage of all welfare recipients over time? A majority? Half? A third or a quarter? Even fewer?

I have been very fortunate--I have never had to obtain assistance from the government--but I have had personal friends or acquaintances who had had to avail themselves of either unemployment insurance or welfare or food stamps. None of these people fit the popular stereotypes, none continued with the assistance as soon as they were able to become self-sufficient again, none schemed ways to initially apply for and receive assistance or to continue to receive assistance. And let me tell you, the amount of money they received was a pittance, and they still lived in severely straitened conditions, and no one would envy their circumstances.

It has long been the default position by those of advantage--over the centuries--to ascribe their own comfort to their hard work and virtue while blaming the poor for their wretchedness, as a sign of their sinfulness or sloth. Contemporary complaints about mythical welfare queens driving cadillacs are expressions of the same impulse, and they're meant to dehumanize the poor, to distance them from the "rest of us," to absolve ourselves of any sense of responsibility to help alleviate their misery.

Look, I'll accept that there are probably people who scam the system to avoid having to work and to obtain payment from the government to which they're not entitled: this is human nature. Anytime there is a system where money flows, there will be those who will figure out how to siphon some of that money flow to themselves. But, do we really know how many people do this and how significant is the real problem? Certainly, there are more people and institutions among the wealthy who are sucking up government largesse--witness the bank bailouts as but a recent example--than there are those at the bottom of the heap; the wealthy sup on government bounty, and the poor scramble for dregs.

In the end, we can only do our best to try to provide help for those who truly need it while weeding out those who don't, but I'd rather have the assistance programs in place than not. Not only do I know that people who need help can get some, but also, if ever I needed assistance, I could obtain it.

(I wrote this in a rush and have to leave for work, so this may not be as cogent as I would prefer--and I've had to delete twice to correct garbled syntax--but I hope I've expressed my point clearly.)